Vía
No Wrong Door · Wichita Pilot
Connective infrastructure for homeless services — not new shelter, but real-time routing between every available resource in the city.
Problem & Solution
The system has the beds. It doesn't have the routing.
The Problem
homeless individuals in Wichita on any given night
youth & transitional beds sitting unused — shelters don't know who fits
average wait from first contact to stable placement in Wichita
national average — the benchmark we're beating
Organizations work in silos. A person denied at shelter A doesn't automatically reach shelter B. Each wrong door costs weeks.
The Solution
No Wrong Door is connective tissue — not new shelter.
We don't build beds. We fill the ones nobody can find.
Market Analysis
Wichita is the proof point. The market is every city with a shelter system.
$4.8B
553,742 homeless individuals across US cities with coordinated entry programs. At $8,700/person avg system cost, the coordination inefficiency layer is ~$4.8B/yr.
$580M
~120 mid-size US cities (pop 250K–700K) with fragmented multi-org shelter systems and existing HMIS infrastructure — our deployable target over 5 years.
$6.5M
Wichita (Year 1) + 2 adjacent Kansas metros (Year 2–3) + 2 early-adopter cities via grant partnerships (Year 3). $500K–$1.1M per deployment.
Adjacent Markets
Veteran Services
HUD-VASH coordination gaps — identical routing problem, dedicated funding stream
Re-entry / Justice
Post-incarceration housing placement; high overlap with homeless population (30%+)
Foster Youth Aging Out
50% of foster youth experience homelessness within 2 years of aging out
Competitive Differentiation
No Wrong Door is the only real-time routing layer — everything else is a directory or a report.
| Capability | No Wrong Door | Coordinated Entry (Traditional) | 211 Helpline | HMIS / Clarity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Real-time bed availability | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ |
| Active routing (push, not pull) | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ |
| Intake under 15 minutes | ✓ | ✗ | ~ | ✗ |
| Youth-specific pathway matching | ✓ | ~ | ✗ | ✗ |
| Landlord engagement layer | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ |
| Stabilization doc navigation | ✓ | ~ | ~ | ✗ |
| Live bottleneck dashboard | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ~ |
| Cross-org data sharing | ✓ | ~ | ✗ | ✓ |
| Outcome tracking (90-day) | ✓ | ~ | ✗ | ✓ |
vs. Traditional Coordinated Entry
Paper-based or spreadsheet-driven, updated weekly. Routing decisions made by a single coordinator with no real-time capacity signal. Average placement time: 3–8 weeks. We route in 12 minutes with live bed data.
vs. HMIS / Data Warehouses
HMIS is retrospective reporting — it tells you what happened last quarter. We are forward-looking routing — we tell you which bed is open right now and which person is the best fit for it.
3-Year P&L Projections
Grant-funded in Year 1; fee-for-service emerging in Year 3.
| Line | Year 1 (Pilot) | Year 2 (Scale) | Year 3 (Expand) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $500K | $950K | $1.6M |
| Total Costs | $475K | $880K | $1.3M |
| Net | $25K | $70K | $280K |
| Individuals served | 300 | 600 | 1,200 |
| Cost per person | $1,583 | $1,467 | $1,100 |
Assumptions
Year 1 (Pilot)
- ·$500K CoC/HUD grant (full ask)
- ·300 individuals served at $1,667/person
- ·Technology costs absorbed in platform line
Year 2 (Scale)
- ·$950K renewal + $0 fee-for-service (Year 2 baseline)
- ·600 individuals served — 2× cohort growth
- ·Platform ops scale at 60% of Year 1 per-unit cost
- ·2 FTE hires: navigator + data coordinator
Year 3 (Expand)
- ·$1.1M renewal grants across 3 metros
- ·$500K fee-for-service from partner cities (avg $167K/city)
- ·1,200 individuals served across 3 markets
- ·Technology margin improves to 38% of revenue
Revenue Mix — Year 3
The Ask & Use of Funds
$500K pilot grant — every dollar traceable to an outcome.
Total Ask
$500,000
12-month pilot · 300 individuals served · Wichita, KS
What $500K Delivers
300
individuals routed
≤45 days
to stable placement
62%
90-day retention
$534K
in system savings
Outcome projections based on Wichita CoC baseline data and peer-city pilot benchmarks. Full funding model → · Year-two renewal case →